Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, it gave me great pleasure to vote for this report today and I want to say that I totally support the Commission’s 10-year European Disability Strategy. It aims to increase to 75% the proportion of working-age people across Europe in employment by 2020. This increase simply cannot be achieved without inclusive and specially adapted training programmes. Last week, you and I hosted the signing of the Microsoft and Workability International Education Alliance. This is an exciting initiative and an example of a step towards realising our common vision of changing public and industrial perceptions of people with disabilities.

This partnership will help people with disabilities to break out of their previous confinement to blue-collar jobs and to realise their full potential through the provision of technology courses aligned with industry and industry’s hiring needs. The technologies are practical and they will be made to work, but ultimately they will work only if Member States adopt and implement them.

It is of course very important that we treat all people equally. Unfortunately people with disabilities have suffered more than most as a result of the economic recession, especially in terms of employment opportunities. Hopefully that can be addressed as we come out of recession.

In relation to facilities, I think we should be utilising particularly the structural funds to ensure that facilities are up to the required standard so that everybody can have access to buildings, etc.

Thirdly, I would like to highlight the role that sport is playing in helping people with disabilities, particularly movements like the Paralympics and the Special Olympics, which are helping to highlight people’s abilities – as opposed to their disabilities – and giving them a new lease of life.

Glenis Willmott (S&D). - Mr President, I am happy to have voted for this report, as it gives us the opportunity to make sure that greater emphasis is put on social and environmental standards when Member States award contracts under public procurement rules. In my constituency of the East Midlands, the UK Government has recently chosen to award a major train-building contract to the lowest cost supplier, using the procurement rules to justify this.

The decision means that 1 400 people at the Bombardier site in my constituency will become redundant. Indirectly many thousands more will lose their jobs. This is a clear illustration of why the directive needs reform. We want all procurement rules to drive up standards and encourage sustainable, inclusive growth. To achieve that, the lowest-cost-only option needs to be the exception to the rule and social, economic and environmental criteria must become the norm. New legislation alone is not enough.

The Commission is failing to make sure that public authorities make full use of this legislation. I have asked the Commission to confirm that EU rules did not oblige the UK Government to make the choice that it did and they have failed to reply to me, although the deadline for response was over two weeks ago. The Commission must do more to make public authorities aware of the full extent of what they can do under EU legislation.

There are just two points I want to emphasise. Firstly, I think the emphasis on SMEs is absolutely vital. They are the future of Europe to a large degree and, particularly in relation to public procurement, we can do a great deal to make matters easier for them. I look forward in particular to my proposal regarding the procurement passport for SMEs becoming a reality as soon as possible.

Secondly, as has been mentioned by the previous speaker and others, it is absolutely vital that we get away from the lowest cost tender. This has come up in many discussions I have had in this regard – only this morning with some American business people – because we have to put the 2020 Strategy first. Particular issues, like energy conservation and also the overall aspect of employment etc., have to be taken into consideration when we are looking into these matters.

Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, many of our problems today in the world are global, not local, and the solutions therefore need to be global as well. There is not much point in Europe introducing measures which may be right in themselves but which are actually going to disadvantage the eurozone area or the European Union. They have to be global solutions, particularly in relation to things like transaction tax. I think too that we, as the European Union, need to demand a seat on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund governing bodies.

The IMF needs to be far more democratic than it is currently. Its managing director needs to be elected on a merit-based system, and transitional developing countries also need greater voting rights. These measures are worth aiming for, and if we can get them we will have a better system for dealing with the problems we face at the moment and ensuring those problems do not occur again in the future.

So in relation to this topic, obviously where there are genuine situations of single mothers, or indeed single fathers, they have to be treated with respect and given every opportunity to further both themselves and their child. Especially we have to ensure that they do not fall into the poverty trap or suffer from social exclusion. They are measures that I think we would certainly support. I think it should also be established whether they are genuine cases and that they are supported when they are genuine. When they are not, obviously this causes a dilemma.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − Parliament has consistently supported adequate financing of the European External Action Service (EEAS). The personnel policy of the EEAS, however, raises a series of questions, notably that of the significant creation of high-ranking posts. The main concern – that this approach was a result of Member States’ pressure on the EEAS to create sufficiently high-ranking posts for national civil servants within it – proved, following reception of detailed information from the EEAS on its personnel policy, to be unfounded. I therefore followed the rapporteur’s recommendation of approving the Council’s position with regard to the EEAS establishment plan but calling, at the same time, on the EEAS to show restraint in relation to possible future plans for creating additional high-ranking posts.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I welcome the recommendations for improving the Council’s position with regard to the European External Action Service (EEAS) establishment plan, and the calls on the EEAS to show restraint in relation to possible future plans for the creation of additional high-ranking posts. I supported this report.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − It is known that Draft Amending Budget (DAB) 5/2011 covers the modifications to the establishment plans of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), both without any additional budgetary requests. The Council adopted its position on DAB 5/2011on 12 September 2011. The purpose of the change to the EEAS establishment plan is to allow the EEAS to comply in 2011 with the statutory promotion rates set out in the Staff Regulations and to permit further progress towards the objective that staff from national diplomatic services should represent at least one third of the Service’s staff at AD level. The purpose of the change to the EDPS establishment plan is to delete an AD 14 post and to create an AD 15 post (upgrading) to fulfil obligations under the Staff Regulations in relation to the promotion of a newly appointed director. I support the rapporteur on both issues and I voted in favour.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. This Draft Amending Budget (DAB) No 5 for the year 2011 covers the following: a modification to the establishment plan of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS); a modification to the establishment plan of the European External Action Service (EEAS). Concerning the two points of Draft Amending Budget No 5/2010 and the Council’s position on it, Parliament considers that, if the appointment represented ‘an exceptional circumstance for the EDPS’ then an institution could seek the adoption of an amending budget during the course of the budget year every time that a new post is being created or an appointment has been made in a higher grade. Therefore your rapporteur recommends to amend the Council’s position by restoring the 2011 establishment plan of the EDPS.

Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. − There were serious irregularities in the implementation of the European Police College budget for the financial year 2009. However, I voted in favour of granting it the discharge, primarily due to the new management and governance of the College, which displayed a commitment to tackle its deficiencies and to implement measures required by the European Parliament, in particular the revision of the Financial Regulation of the College, the application of the procurement manual and the decision of its governing board to grant voting rights to the Commission. The fulfilment of these commitments will be closely monitored during the 2010 discharge procedure. I call for CEPOL to be merged into Europol in order to reduce expenditure and increase efficiency.

This is why I called on the Court of Auditors to prepare a special report, during 2012, setting out the costs and benefits in financial and operational terms of merging the College’s responsibilities with those of Europol. As rapporteur for the 2010 discharge of the EU agencies, I strongly believe that the rationalisation of EU agencies is both necessary and relevant.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report on the European Police College, which acknowledges the measures taken by the new management and governance of the College to tackle its deficiencies.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I welcome the measures taken by the new management and governance of the College, in response to Parliament’s previous requests for action, to tackle its deficiencies. In the light of the improvements made, I support Parliament’s decision to grant discharge to the College in respect of the Agency’s budget for the 2009 financial year.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − After postponement earlier this year of the 2009 budget discharge for the European Police College, the new draft report proposes to grant discharge, and there are no amendments tabled to refuse it. The draft report generally recognises the big improvements made in the college’s management over the past two years. Two amendments were passed, asking for the College’s relocation and for its merger with Europol in The Hague for efficiency reasons – going beyond the remit of the Committee on Budgetary Control, as decisions on the location of agencies and other bodies are made by the Member States. I agree with the rapporteur and I voted in favour.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Abstention. The report now states that the College has improved its accounting system and that the new rules on procurement and the procurement manual are now finalised. There is a better internal control system compared to 2009. In short, progress has been made, illegal contracts have been terminated and recovery of unduly paid private expenditure has been finalised. But we are still very critical of the way in which the Police College handles its finances and would prefer to attach the whole agency, which is providing police training on a European level, to a larger and better run entity, namely Europol.

Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. − The discharge for 2009 was granted today to the European Medicines Agency. However, I would like to point out that the Agency failed to provide the Parliament with the action plan on public procurement, its timetable for implementation and the updated documents on the management and prevention of conflicts of interests, as requested in May 2011 when the discharge was postponed. These areas will be closely monitored. These were part of the amendments which I tabled and were adopted during the vote in the Committee on Budgetary Control and integrated in the final report voted on today by the Plenary. As Parliament’s rapporteur for the 2010 discharge of the EU Agencies’ budgets I will closely monitor the European Medicines Agency and look in particular at conflicts of interests and cost-efficiency criteria in each and every EU agency. These issues will bear considerable weight in the decision on discharge.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report which insists, but also warns the European Medicines Agency, that all the actions mentioned in the respective audit reports, including the one for the year 2010, should be fully implemented before the start of the next discharge procedure.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I support this report and welcome the measures taken by the European Medicines Agency to address its shortcomings in 2009. I support calls for the agency to continue to inform the discharge authority, on a three-monthly basis, about the results of actions requested. The agency is also called upon to proceed promptly with the adoption of an action plan to remedy the shortcomings in procurement procedures.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Budget discharge for the European Medicines Agency for 2009 had been postponed because considerable concern had been expressed about weaknesses in the agency’s procurement systems and also in relation to the prevention of conflicts of interest. The committee voted to grant discharge and close the accounts, approving our rapporteur’s amendments (members of the ENVI Committee from all groups had been active in securing support for this position). A number of quite critical amendments were passed, including some calling for very detailed reporting to Parliament in future, so these issues are likely to be discussed again in the discharge procedures for future years. I voted in favour.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. An important issue which caused the postponement of the 2009 discharge was the fact that experts and staff were not checked on their independence or on possible conflicts of interest, which led to a lack of impartiality. They have improved on paper (for the time being) the procedures on compliance with the respective codes of conduct. A large majority on the Committee on Budgetary Control is in favour of granting discharge. But we have tabled in committee a number of amendments (which were adopted) to ensure that, if they receive discharge for 2009, the Committee on Budgetary Control will keep a close eye on developments, and also to take full account of the lack of progress made in the decision on next year’s discharge. We should not grant discharge to this agency, and we should make it clear that a lot still has to be done to tackle problems which might also harm the health of European citizens.

Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. − The European Medicines Agency, which is based in my home constituency of London, does valuable work in helping to protect public health across the European Union. However, there are concerns about a lack of transparency in the agency, which sometimes keeps doctors and patients in the dark.

On the issue of the budget, regretfully I had to vote against the discharge today. My constituents are feeling the pinch of the economic crisis and I therefore cannot countenance suspect procurement procedures which may have cost the taxpayer EUR 30 million. Conflicts of interest also need to be eliminated. It is wholly unacceptable that the agency’s former director took up well-paid consultancy jobs advising pharmaceutical companies within weeks of leaving his post.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution codifying the legislation on tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report, which calls on Parliament and the Council to issue a directive relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers, and to the fitting thereof.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 92/23/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting. The new directive will supersede the various acts now incorporated into it. This proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together, with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself. Therefore, I voted in favour.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The European Parliament, A. whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, 1. Adopts its position at first reading, taking over the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in civil, commercial and family matters.

I welcome the recent Commission consultation on ADR. Compared to courts, ADR schemes are cheaper, quicker and less formal, offering practical solutions. As ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors, we, Members of the European Parliament, believe that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include disputes about business-to-business, civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, as well as family disputes and cases of defamation or cases involving parties whose legal status differs.

Moreover, on-line shopping is increasing and ADR could play a more relevant role here because the scope for judicial action is sometimes limited when dealing with new technologies. Parliament stresses the need to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes, especially in the on-line market, which is growing rapidly in the EU. I support the rapporteur’s position that the use of ADR systems affords a higher level of protection of consumer rights, while also promoting cross-border trade and increased prosperity for all operators in the EU market.

Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − I agree with the Wallis report because the creation of a more streamlined system of ADR across the board has never been more important in order to ensure that citizens are provided with affordable, expedient and accessible out-of-court mechanisms through which they can seek redress and safeguard their rights. It is a fact that ADR systems like the SOLVIT network have proven successful in solving problems affecting citizens, nevertheless the ADR landscape of Europe remains largely fragmented. I am convinced that any future Commission action plan in this respect should secure a new citizen-based ADR structure built on the principles of transparency and proportionality. It is also possible for us to work with the existing structures we currently have at our disposal, such as the ECC-Network and FIN-Network centres. Additionally, the usage of small claims tribunals in various Member States remains significantly low and therefore this aspect must be taken into account by the Commission when formulating its proposal on ADR. It is vital to note that for any final EU-wide ADR package to be endorsed by the European citizen, this must factor in the existence of an EU-wide collective redress system, and therefore I urge the Commission to firmly put in place this mechanism by 2012.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the recent Commission consultation on ADR which, despite its wide-ranging title, is exclusively targeted at consumer transactions. However, I believe that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors and take the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes, defamation cases and other general interest disputes or ones involving parties with different legal statuses.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − Consumer protection and confidence have become increasingly important for the effective functioning of the single market, which can be strengthened through adequate law enforcement and by paving the way for more effective alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR schemes are quicker and more informal and offer practical solutions. It is vital that these schemes go beyond consumer disputes, that they are completely transparent and that they are independently monitored. I support this report.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This report, prepared in enhanced co-operation with the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, examines options for alternative dispute resolution (i.e. resolving disputes out of court) in advance of the Commission’s proposal on the subject, which is expected in the next month. Whilst people’s access to justice must continue to be guaranteed, there are many types of dispute that can be resolved easily and relatively cheaply out of court – for example, customer complaints, divorce proceedings, etc. – and this report looks at ways to encourage that. I voted in favour.

Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters. Out-of-court dispute settlement is an effective, accessible and simple means of restoring legal peace between parties, and it can be more widely used if we promote better awareness and understanding of the relevant mechanisms.

Justice is a fundamental right, and expedient access to it across the EU Member States’ borders is essential in order to consolidate undertakings’ and consumers’ trust in the internal market as a safe environment in which to do business and to shop. However, in contrast to the approach taken in the Commission’s consultation, our contention is that the scope of alternative dispute resolution should not be confined to commercial matters. Our constituents are citizens, not merely consumers. Other civil matters, including family disputes, increasingly extend beyond the borders of individual Member States, as our citizens enjoy the dividends of European integration. Common standards for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, especially as regards impartiality, transparency, fairness and confidentiality, are key to establishing easy and trusted access to justice across the EU, and they need to be underpinned by cross-border enforceability.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Non-controversial issue. It is simply a call for improving information about rights and their enforcement and information on alternative dispute resolution schemes targeted in particular at citizens and SMEs.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report, which reminds the Court of Auditors of Parliament’s suggestion to perform an in-depth assessment of supervisory and control systems in the Council, similar to the assessments it performed on the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, in the course of preparing the Court of Auditors’ annual report concerning the financial year 2010.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The Council asserts that it received budget discharge when the Commission budget discharge was granted in May 2011: it bases this on the Treaty specification that only the Commission has to be granted budget discharge. The Council considers that ‘separate negotiations on the Council discharge 2009 after closure of the accounts had no legal basis’. On the other hand, Parliament’s legal view is that ‘closure of accounts does not mean that discharge is granted’. Parliament, in its role as budget discharge authority has to be satisfied that EU funds have been correctly used by all institutions, including the Council. I voted in favour.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. In fact it has almost the same content as the first report, but with some stronger formulations because the Council did not move at all in providing the requested information and refused to show up at meetings of the Committee on Budgetary Control. Furthermore it is updated, taking account of the opinions of the Parliament and Council Legal Services. A large majority of the Committee on Budgetary Control are in favour of not granting discharge. The non-cooperative attitude of the Council leaves us and all other groups no other choice than to refuse discharge.

Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. − By voting in favour of the Rivellini report, I voted against granting discharge to the Council's 2009 budget. I felt this should not be signed off until Parliament received all the budgetary information it had requested. Only in this way can MEPs properly scrutinise the expenditure. I believe that the overall EU budget should be reduced and therefore the budgets of all the EU institutions need to be cut. Our think-tank, New Direction, has for example just published a report on cutting the costs of Parliament. Similar strictures need to be imposed on the Council secretariat.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I fully endorse the EU’s policy of reducing emissions and support Directive 2000/25/EC. However, independent studies and the data compiled by the Commission show that more time is required to enable manufacturers to develop Stage IIIB-compliant systems. I therefore support the Commission’s proposal to postpone by three years the date of the introduction of Stage IIIB and Stage IV for tractors in categories T2, T4.1, C2.

Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. − Directive 2000/25/25/EC reduces the permissible levels of exhaust (gaseous and particle) emissions from engines in agricultural and forestry tractors. An amendment in 2005 introducing ambitious reduction targets in PM and NOx values provided for a possibility for the Commission to conduct a technical review in order to examine the available technology, with a view to confirming Stage III B and IV limit values, and evaluate the possible need for additional flexibilities, exemptions or later introduction dates for certain types of equipment or engines. The Commission conducted this review and came to the conclusion that for engine categories T2, C2, and T4.1 it was appropriate to postpone for 3 years the introduction of Category IIIB and IV for narrow-track tractors with a maximum width of 1.15 m, as relevant data confirmed that more time is required to enable manufacturers to develop Stage IIIB-compliant systems. I strongly support the proposal, which asks the Commission to present the EP, on a yearly basis, with a progress report on the development of technical solutions for Stage IV.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The Commission proposal amends existing legislation on limits to pollutant emissions from engines intended to power agricultural and forestry tractors. The existing legislation provides for current Stage III A limits to be replaced by more stringent Stage III B limits, entering into force progressively from 1 January 2011 with regard to placing on the market, and from 1 January 2010 as regards the type approval for those engines. Directive 2000/25/EC provides for a review clause in order to take into account the specificities of tractors of categories T2, T4.1 and C.2 called narrow-track tractors (maximum width less than 1.15 m). As a result of technical studies carried out in 2007, 2009 and 2010, the Commission has established that it is not technically feasible for tractors classified within the categories T2, C2 and T4.1 to meet the requirements of stages IIIB and IV by the dates set out in the Directive. A delay of 3 years for Stage IIIB and Stage IV requirements is proposed by the Commission.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − The justification given by the Commission for the proposal is largely based on the economic crisis. From autumn 2008 onwards most of the EU-based industry producing non-road mobile machinery has been affected by the crisis, and especially the construction and agricultural sectors have suffered from steep decreases in sales. The Commission argues that the compliance costs required to reach the new stage IIIB are too high to bear for an industry severely hit by the crisis. The economic crisis is a reality, but there are already signs of recovery. As the sales are picking up, the rationale for the Commission proposal is diminishing. As for some of the bigger producers, for whom the data is more readily available, the sales seem to be smaller when compared to the years which could be called a sort-of a boom for the industry – the current sales numbers are however not much smaller when compared to years preceding the boom. All in all, as the legislation and the limit values for new stage IIIB has been in place since 2004, followed by some considerably strong years for the industry, the claim of lacking resources for development looses ground.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − It is known that the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) Directive (97/68/EC) aims to control emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates (CO2 emissions are not covered by this legislation) from a variety of engines in, for example, excavators, bulldozers, front loaders, back loaders and compressors. The directive was amended in 2004 to introduce new emissions limits and, in addition, the flexibility scheme allowing manufacturers to place on the market a limited number of engines belonging to the older category (with higher maximum permitted exhaust emissions). The proposed amendment provides for the possibility of enlarging the flexibility scheme, from 20% to 50% of annual sales of equipment, and extending it to include engines for railcars and locomotives, with a flexibility rate of 20% of annual sales of machinery fitted with engines in the specified category.

Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. − The Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) Directive (97/68/EC) aims to control carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates emissions (CO2 emissions are not covered by this legislation) from a variety of engines such as excavators, bulldozers, front loaders, back loaders and compressors. The directive was amended in 2004 to introduce new emission limits and, with that, the flexibility scheme. The flexibility scheme allows manufacturers to place on the market a limited number of engines belonging to the older category (with higher maximum permitted exhaust emissions).

I support the following compromises: the flexibility scheme to be increased to 37.5% of the annual quantity of equipment placed on the market for the duration of the stage IIIB or up to three years when no subsequent stage exists; 16 engines for locomotives to be compliant with the previous stage standards and additionally 10 engines for locomotives that can be used in the UK due to specific rail conditions. Environmental legislation should always be consistent with our medium-term and long-term environmental goals, but in the short run we are making efforts to support the recovery of SMEs from the economic crisis.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. The Commission proposal weakens existing legislation on limits to pollutant emissions from diesel engines installed in construction, agricultural and forestry machinery, railcars & locomotives, inland waterway vessels, constant speed engines and small petrol engines used in different types of machinery. The existing directive provides for emission limit stages of increasing stringency with corresponding compliance dates. The current applicable stage of emission limits for the majority of diesel engines referred to as Stage III A will be replaced by the more stringent Stage III B limits progressively as of 1 January 2011, and the type approval period for these engines started on 1 January 2010. The Commission proposes increasing the already-permitted flexibility for manufacturers to place on the market 20% of engines that do not comply with the emission limit values to 50% in order to mitigate further the economic costs on the grounds of the economic recession. In addition, the flexibility is extended to railcars and locomotives. Expiry of the measure is proposed for 31 December 2013.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I am strongly in favour of increased long-term investment and support for people with disabilities, as it is imperative that they are provided with the necessary means to enjoy equal rights, equal treatment and full participation in education, employment, social life and public life, in particular in relation to the right to vote.

Parliament has adopted significant decisions for the recognition and protection of the rights of people with disabilities, calling for legal standards and legislation at EU level. However, it is important that the new generation of human rights of people with disabilities be upheld through active and targeted policies ensuring the practical application of all human rights and guaranteeing equal opportunities and full access to services and products.

One of the most important objectives is to improve the level of employment among the almost 80 million people with disabilities who live in the EU. An increased rate of poverty results in limited access to employment, training, healthcare and appropriate treatment, so disability benefits must therefore be guaranteed to those in need. States must develop national policies and strategies on disability, in harmony with the European Disability Strategy (EDS), while at the same time introducing detailed deadlines and mechanisms for the implementation of the EDS, particularly with regard to strengthening the role of Parliament.

Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. − I support this Report on the Mobility and Inclusion of People with Disabilities, which aims to empower persons with disabilities so that they can enjoy their full rights and fully participate in society and in the European economy and identifies eight main areas for action: accessibility, participation, equality, employment, education and training, social protection, health, and external action. Anti-discrimination policy is key to promoting social inclusion and employment for people with disabilities. The Member States should not only sign and ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Disabled and its additional protocols; they should also develop national policies and strategies on disabilities in harmony with the European Commission’s European Disability Strategy (EDS) and the EU2020 strategy. They should also review the existing national-level documents on this matter. The Commission’s action plan for the period until 2015, linked to the EDS, is a step in the right direction, but support should also be given to measures with specific deadlines and programme elements which would improve implementation.

Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − I fully support the approach of the Kósa report on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities. People living with disabilities represents more than 16% of the European Union’s total population and are one of the most excluded and vulnerable groups in society, with a poverty rate higher than 70%. The new European Disability Strategy advocates that people with disabilities should be active participants in European society and should fully enjoy their rights.

It is regrettable that, despite all the Commission’s and the Member States’ efforts, people with disabilities continue to face barriers and have limited access to goods and services in everyday life. With this in mind, the EU and its Member States should not underestimate the magnitude of the problem – especially in the current economic situation, which compounds the negative impact on people’s lives, in particular among marginalised groups. The EU and the Member States, taking into account the needs of people with disabilities, should purposefully promote anti-discrimination policies and active social inclusion, in order to guarantee that people with disabilities enjoy universal, effective, equal and non-discriminatory access to high-quality public services by facilitating their mobility and their access to employment, healthcare, education, training and other tools for independent living.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − This report contains a great number of important points. With the Europe 2020 Strategy targeting a 75% employment rate amongst Europe’s citizens aged 20-64, it is clear that increased employment amongst those with disabilities is essential. Increasing mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities involves fundamental human rights issues – and is a requirement for invigorating Europe’s economic well-being.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution, which points out that ‘the 80 million people with disabilities have a greater chance of falling into poverty (according to the OECD, roughly every fourth person with disabilities lives in poverty)’, and adds that: ‘The threat of poverty is at the same time a stigma, and disability benefits and entitlements must be guaranteed to those in need.’

Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − The mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities, in terms of both employment and social inclusion, are still not as good as they ought to be. I voted in favour of this report, which is specifically about people with disabilities; however, I voted against the original paragraph 53 because it seeks to broaden the scope of the report.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The Council has adopted conclusions on the new European Disability Strategy 2010-2020. The strategy aims to empower persons with disabilities so that they can enjoy their full rights and participate fully in society and in the European economy. It identifies eight main areas for action: accessibility, participation, equality, employment, education and training, social protection, health, and external action.

I particularly welcome the call to the Council to adopt the proposed Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. I also support the emphasis on the need to guarantee universal, effective, non-discriminatory access for persons with disabilities to social protection, social advantages, health care and education, and on the fact that integration into working life and economic independence are extremely important factors for the social integration of people with disabilities. I voted in favour.

Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. − The employment level for people with disabilities and whose work capacity has changed is generally low throughout the EU, with 30-40% of them working; the situation is even worse in the poorer Member States, whilst the employment level needs to rise by approximately 1% per year if the 75% level set out in EU2020 is to be met. Meanwhile, 12 million jobs suitable for low-qualified workers will disappear by 2020. In this respect, employers should allow people with disabilities to take up a position, if qualified, advance in it and to support them by training. The European Commission and the Member States should support the flexibility in the labour market combined with an adequate social security system by creating flexible and secure contractual arrangements and work organisations, effective active labour market policies and reliable and responsive lifelong learning systems.

Member States should review their provision of health services for people with disabilities, such as measures relating to physical accessibility to services, training and medical staff, information provided in accessible formats, customised counselling services, including translation into various languages, and health services customised to the needs of people with disabilities.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. It was crucial that Amendment 1 on paragraph 53 was rejected, and that the original text remains as follows:

53. Notes that the Member States should, as a priority, agree and adopt as soon as possible the proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426); calls on the Commission to continue to support the overcoming of technical difficulties within the Council in order to ensure that a swift agreement is reached; notes that anti-discrimination policy plays a key role in promoting social inclusion and employment for people with disabilities;

Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this important report, which is Parliament's response to the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 and is a positive step towards a more inclusive society. I also support Parliament's call for the Council to adopt the Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment for citizens irrespective of religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. Providing social protection, health care and education to persons with disabilities is vital in order to boost the social integration of 80 million people living with a disability in the EU. In addition to this, there is no doubt that access to the labour market for persons with disabilities is limited; only 30 to 40% are in employment. The integration into working life, and the economic independence, of persons with disabilities is extremely important for their general social integration, and is becoming even more important in this time of financial austerity.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I wish to congratulate my colleague Ms Rühle for her excellent work on this report. I welcome her calls to make public procurement procedures simpler and more flexible as well as calls for better access to the process for SMEs. I also support replacing the ‘lowest price’ with the ‘most economically advantageous tender’.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution, which in the field of public procurement calls on the Commission to assess the problems associated with exceptionally low bids and to propose appropriate solutions; recommends that contracting authorities provide, in the event of abnormally low bids being received, for early and sufficient information to other bidders, in order to allow them to assess whether there are grounds for initiating a review procedure; and asks for greater consistency between the EU’s common external trade policy and the practices in Member States where exceptionally low bids are accepted.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This report highlights ‘environmental and social public-policy challenges, as well as quality-of-work issues including adequate pay, equality, social cohesion and inclusion, while achieving optimal value for citizens, businesses, employees and taxpayers’ and, with regard to the general principles for awarding contracts, states clearly that the lowest price should no longer be the determining factor and that ‘it should, in general, be replaced by the criterion of most economically advantageous tender, in terms of economic, social and environmental benefits – taking into account the entire life-cycle costs of the relevant goods, services or works’. I therefore believe that the report is a very important document and I support it.

Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. − The report on the modernisation of public procurement (PP) is based on the Green Paper preceding the imminent legislative proposals from the Commission on PP (due to come in Dec 2011), its content being relevant to the future legislative report. I voted for this report because PP could be a real driver in promoting quality jobs, wages and conditions, and equality, developing skills and training, promoting environmental policies, and providing incentives for research and innovation. I fully support the request to the Commission to encourage governments and contracting authorities to increase the use of sustainable public procurement supporting and promoting good quality employment, and providing quality services and goods in Europe. I consider there are good provisions relating to SMEs, to the fight against corruption and to e-public procurement.

Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report on the modernisation of public procurement rules.

European rules on tendering procedures must not undermine workers’ rights and social conditions. When public authorities purchase goods and services to meet our citizens’ various needs, we must not – for the sake of securing the cheapest price at any price – ignore the needs of the workers who provide them. The ‘cheapest tender’ principle needs to be reviewed so as to cover social and environmental criteria, taking into account the full costs of each option presented.

Decent work standards have to be upheld. Otherwise, when pursuing public-interest goals, we risk undermining social conditions. Fair and equal pay and proper working conditions, which safeguard health and safety, are not incompatible with sound financial management. Tender applicants must not be allowed to evade their obligations by hiding behind a chain of subcontractors which can render them unaccountable.

We also need to consider changes to the current thresholds for supply and services contracts, so as to ensure that charities, NGOs and small local operators are not deprived of access to these markets as a result of legal and administrative burdens which are unjustified in the environments where such organisations operate, and which paralyse them, to nobody’s benefit.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. This year marks the 40th anniversary of European public procurement law. The entry into force on 26 July 1971 of Council Directive 71/305/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts is an event seldom recalled. The Commission Green Paper on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy mentions the directive only once.

Nonetheless, the anniversary offers an occasion for taking stock and examining where European public procurement policy has succeeded and where it has failed. The EP position is that any revision of the public procurement directives should proceed from the recognition that there is now considerable experience with EU public procurement law in Europe: whereas, in the early days, strictly formalised procedures were necessary in order to bring a certain degree of professionalism to public procurement practice and to accustom the contracting authorities to the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and competition, these things are nowadays common practice. What is required today is a slimming-down of public procurement law to refocus it on the core task of guaranteeing transparency and non-discrimination and safeguarding competition.

Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − The report, which I fully support, states the importance of ensuring that taxpayers’ money is used effectively to boost the economy and enhance job creation. This must be done by creating clear, simple rules to encourage public authorities as they look to boost innovation and growth. The proposals outlined in the report highlight the need to establish an EU-wide electronic procurement passport to give evidence that EU public procurement rules are complied with. This would be effective in reducing the currently costly and inefficient administrative burden linked to tendering for contracts. I also fully support the proposed changes to the criteria for tenders, which will benefit SMEs. Compared to their share in the economy, SMEs are struggling to secure public procurement contracts. A contract should be awarded to the proposal offering the most advantageous economic, social and environmental terms rather than being based solely on the ‘lowest price’ criterion. I support this because it will undoubtedly be beneficial in terms of generating more innovative bids in line with EU2020 strategy goals.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I support this report, which aims to reaffirm the European commitment to reinforcing the right of free movement for workers.

Member States must facilitate the exercise of this right, implementing existing legislation fully whilst bringing national legislation into line with the European provisions, in order to eliminate possible direct or indirect barriers, notably with regard to discriminatory behaviour based on nationality, refusal of rights for family members, and social security scheme rules, as well as other barriers that can prevent workers from moving freely in search of a job or can create disincentives to their doing to.

In an era of globalised markets, the free movement of workers can address the problem of finding a profitable fit between labour demand and supply. The Commission must strengthen its efforts in enforcing and supporting labour mobility, must conduct more in-depth analysis in relation to infringement procedures for non-compliant Member States, and must present a long-term, comprehensive, multidisciplinary mobility strategy for analysing and removing all existing legal, administrative and practical barriers to the free movement of workers. Over-protectionism in terms of labour mobility will induce a mistrust that could affect the EU’s performance as a world player. Member States need to work and grow together.

Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. − I support this report, which calls for the mobility of workers in an EU free of barriers, with strong integration policies and guaranteeing the respect of social and labour rights, including the right to strike, collective representation and equal pay for work of equal value. The Commission should promote labour mobility by presenting a long-term, comprehensive, multidisciplinary mobility strategy to remove all existing legal, administrative and practical barriers to the free movement of workers, and the Member States should create mechanisms of cooperation aimed at preventing the negative effects of mobility, mainly on families. The equal treatment of workers is the way to prevent social dumping. For adequate protection of labour rights, the principle of ‘equal pay for the same work in the same place’ must be applied in both national legislation and collective agreements. Labour inspection services and their coordination at EU level should be increased, not least in order to counteract both the direct and indirect discrimination and exploitation of migrant workers and false self-employment among mobile workers.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The right to workers’ mobility is one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU. The economic, social and cultural benefits of this freedom are felt across the EU and this report rightly calls for the ending of various restrictions to this right.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report. The issue of labour migration within the EU has long been perceived as a potential problem for disbalances at national level in terms of shortages of labour supply, as well as affecting collective bargaining and wages within host countries. Although the notion of ‘free movement of workers’ has been present in the Treaties as a guarantee for the completion of the single market, and for the strengthening of a true European identity, Member States have been granted the right to maintain provisional barriers for transitional periods in terms of opening the labour market for new Member States. Historically, fears have always been focused on two main aspects: numerous inflows of immigrants from poorer countries coming into the more prosperous ones and losses of jobs for the nationals of the host countries or, in a better scenario, a drop in the level of salaries. However, recent studies have shown that these fears have never been justified and that, on the contrary, labour migration has had a beneficial effect for the EU as a whole

Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − Paragraph 31 of the motion for a resolution calls for an examination of Member States’ legislation in relation to social security, the care system and taxation. It is important that such legislation should remain within the remit of the Member States. Taxation is, and should remain, a Member State competence. For this reason I did not support paragraph 31.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Since our group fights for the mobility of workers in an EU free of barriers, with strong integration policies and guaranteeing the observance of social and labour rights, including the right to strike, collective representation and equal pay for work of equal value, I voted in favour of this report.

Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − The free movement of workers is a very sensitive issue. It will shape the economic and social future of the EU. The free movement of workers is a right that all Member States agreed upon, yet many Member States have introduced or reintroduced restrictions. Approximately one third of workers in the EU are in precarious job situations, and this leads to an increase in workers seeking jobs in other countries.

The Commission provided figures proving that Eastern European workers, in particular, did not hinder the economy but in fact brought economic growth. There is a single market for capital and goods, but there are still limitations on the single labour market. Western companies can operate without restrictions in Eastern Europe, and do so with varying degrees of success, but Eastern European workers face restrictions in Western Europe. This is economically, politically and morally wrong. People have a right to jobs: a right that is granted by the EU.

I voted in favour of this report because it emphasises that the EU must guarantee European values, including freedom and mobility, for all. Comprehensive mobility for workers must be promoted, the rights of workers in foreign countries must be protected and such workers must not be exploited. It is vital to reaffirm the principle of job mobility and to promote geographic mobility.

Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. − Labour migration within the EU has long been perceived as a potential problem, causing imbalances at national level in terms of shortages of labour supply and affecting collective bargaining and wages within host countries. It has, though, had a beneficial effect on the EU as a whole. According to the November 2008 Commission Communication, mobility flows have had a major positive impact on economic growth in the European Union. However, if we focus on details, we notice problems related to changing cultures, adjusting to new languages and alienation from the family, to which there are also other barriers related to enjoying the full exercise of free movement.

The Member States should improve the situation of the children left behind by their parents and help them develop normally, benefiting from education and an appropriate social life. The Member States should create mechanisms of cooperation aimed at preventing such devastating effects on families, especially on children, caused by separation from their parents and the distance between them. The Member States and the European Commission should determine the social partners and the NGOs which will be more involved in such actions aimed at improving the situation of migrants’ children.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. I am glad that Article 21 has been kept: ‘Calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States implement Directive 2004/38/EC without any discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation; reminds the Commission of previous calls to ensure freedom of movement for all EU citizens and their families, regardless of their sexual orientation’.

Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I supported this report as it includes many important steps to promote labour mobility across the EU. MEPs have today called on the Commission to implement a long-term, comprehensive strategy which will remove all legal, administrative and practical barriers to the free movement of workers. However, I remain concerned that this report removes a Member State’s ability to put in place transitional measures that overcome potential distortions in their domestic labour market. We need to look at solutions to deal with this problem and we need further research into the effects on labour markets across the EU before we make a decision on this.